Radioactive dating

[dad]

Why would the ratios produced by "Creation" be exactly the ratios we would expect from 4.5 billion years of a same state past?

Why would you impose a belief system on creation ratios and try to insist that is the normal way we should look at ratios?? Whether it also seems to fit some fable about a turtle making the world exist, or your unproven same state past based fantasy time..who cares? You molested the evidence.

Why couldn't the "Creation" produce zircons with the same 50/50 ratios for both U/Pb series (238U to 206Pb and 235U to 207Pb)?

Why would it? Like an hourglass that we tip the other way...once a state change happenes you can forget your little schemes about how long it took the sand now on the bottom to fall there based on the rate of sand falling!

That means that if the forces were different then they wouldn't fall on a Concordia line for U/Pb dating, right?

Explain why such a line is important in your head? Whatever processes were in place in the former state worked on the ratios also. Tell us how that would not fit into your little line into fantasy land?? After all you do not know how the processes worked or what the forces were even! Pretty hard to claim they would not fit some invented line of yours.

The only way that the two U/Pb series agree with each other is if there was a same state past.

Why? Ratios changed in the former nature also. When you graph that, you would just attribute all changes to the present state. Stop with the religion already. Yech.

Since the ratios are consistent with a same state past, why shouldn't we conclude that?

Only in your head are they consistent. Yesterday I posted a link where science changed their date estimate something like a billion years for something! Your idea of consistent is worthless.

 

[dad]

This was the original question. I showed that entirely independent means of determining that an object was tens of thousands of years old were used, and that these objects categorically showed that radiation existed.

No, a same state past based interpretation of tree rings or varves or etc is anything but independent! It is cut of the exact same belief cloth.

Now, were you not asked to produce some pre 4500 year tree ring samples, along with the radioactive dating taken beyond the 4500 tree ring area as well?

If you continue to avoid this this, it is by dishonesty or psychosis because there is no possible rejection based on fact.

Further, we have established that the physical constants controlling radioactive decay have been constant for over 6 billion years.

No. You have not. But feel free to try to sound like you know something. That will work until you actually post details!

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

If you want to move the goal posts that much (and often), I can see why you brag that you are "Undefeated."

As for details, I gave them to you in the link to a short review I wrote. You have an internet connection- use it.

 

[dad]

If you want to move the goal posts that much (and often), I can see why you brag that you are "Undefeated."

As for details, I gave them to you in the link to a short review I wrote. You have an internet connection- use it.

Try addressing posts rather than random blather. If you spammed a link somewhere, post the relevant quote from it.


By the way, if you think that not assuming the present state laws into the unknown state past is moving goalposts...GONG!

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, if you think that not assuming the present state laws into the unknown state past is moving goalposts...GONG!

Now, dad ... everyone knows the past is the key to interpreting the present.

The old uniformitarianism-vs-catastrophism argument was won by uniformitarians long ago!

 

[dad]

Now, dad ... everyone knows the past is the key to interpreting the present.

The old uniformitarianism-vs-catastrophism argument was won by uniformitarians long ago!

I would tend to agree, except that the way the argument was framed, the question was 'can catastrophes IN A SAME STATE PAST explain all we see as well as uniformitism IN A SAME STATE PAST?!

Once the question becomes, do we really know what state the past was, then the question changes radically. That was not even addressed, let alone won by uniformitarians!

 

[AV1611VET]

I would tend to agree, except that the way the argument was framed, the question was 'can catastrophes IN A SAME STATE PAST explain all we see as well as uniformitism IN A SAME STATE PAST?!

Once the question becomes, do we really know what state the past was, then the question changes radically. That was not even addressed, let alone won by uniformitarians!

Sounds good to me, bro!

How would you answer a child that asks you:

"How's come we don't live for hundreds of years, like they did in the Bible?"

 

[dad]

Sounds good to me, bro!

How would you answer a child that asks you:

"How's come we don't live for hundreds of years, like they did in the Bible?"

I would say that things changed sometime after the flood, and we started to live shorter lives. But not to worry, we now live forever because we believe in Jesus. Even the people in the coming thousand year reign of Christ on earth will have real long lifespans again though.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would say that things changed sometime after the flood, and we started to live shorter lives. But not to worry, we now live forever because we believe in Jesus. Even the people in the coming thousand year reign of Christ on earth will have real long lifespans again though.

Good answer!

 

[Onearm]

I would say that things changed sometime after the flood, and we started to live shorter lives. But not to worry, we now live forever because we believe in Jesus. Even the people in the coming thousand year reign of Christ on earth will have real long lifespans again though.

........ I shouldn't laugh because it's not funny really.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

The article you are ignoring is Here.

Another article you will ignore;

“ Strong Limit on a Variable Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio from Molecules in the Distant Universe” Michael T. Murphy, Victor V. Flambaum, Sébastien Muller, and Christian Henkel Science 20 June 2008 320: 1611-1613

Short answer: The physical constants have been constant for at least 6 billion years. That is the limit of our current measurements.

 

[dad]

The article you are ignoring is Here.

Nothing to ignore. Your link ignores the main issues. Here are some of the PRATTS and strawmen your article regurgitates.

"They have argued that radioactive decay was much faster in the past"

[no, who says any decay existed? The issue is whether our laws existed...which also CAUSE radioactive decay]

"
The Fine Structure Constant Alpha is the strength of the electromagnetic force. It is expressed as Alpha = e^2/(h/2Pi)c, where e is the electron charge, Planck's constant h, divided by 2Pi, and c is the speed of light. So a direct measurement of the fine structure constant over time entails measuring the constancy of the speed of light."

[ALL of those things are present state measurements...how it now works IN the present nature]

"Teams of researchers sought to find the exact parameters of the fine structure constant. After years of effort they found that (to their relief) constants are constant"

[meaningless to make a statement when no specifics are given. When one looks into it it will be shown that they use present state belief based ideas and nothing else at all ]

"Compare two numbers, 0.00000018, the largest possible variation in the speed of light for the last 6.2 billion years, and 2,288,333 the factor that the speed of light must have gone faster for “Young Earth physics” to invalidate an ancient universe"

[false. it is not that our light in our time and space went faster at all. it is that there was no 'our light or our time and space'!]

Another article you will ignore;

“ Strong Limit on a Variable Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio from Molecules in the Distant Universe” Michael T. Murphy, Victor V. Flambaum, Sébastien Muller, and Christian Henkel Science 20 June 2008 320: 1611-1613

Short answer: The physical constants have been constant for at least 6 billion years. That is the limit of our current measurements.

Why flatter yourself? Ignore that?? Hilarious. Show the basis for the claim of the 6 billion years. Then we will see what stuff you are made of.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would you impose a belief system on creation ratios and try to insist that is the normal way we should look at ratios??

A hypothesis is not a belief system.

Answer the question. Why would the ratios produced by "Creation" be exactly the ratios we would expect from 4.5 billion years of a same state past?

Whether it also seems to fit some fable about a turtle making the world exist, or your unproven same state past based fantasy time..who cares? You molested the evidence.

If the evidence matches the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is supported. You don't care that I have just evidenced a same state past?

Why would it? Like an hourglass that we tip the other way...once a state change happenes you can forget your little schemes about how long it took the sand now on the bottom to fall there based on the rate of sand falling!

Why would the hourglass start with ratios that are consistent with 4.5 billion years of decay in a same state past?

Explain why such a line is important in your head?

The Concordia line represents ratios that are consistent with a same state past. They are the data points that support the hypothesis of a same state past.

Tell us how that would not fit into your little line into fantasy land??

If the creation produced rocks with a 50/50 ratio of both U/Pb series then it would not fall on the concordia line. Can you tell us why the creation could not produce zircons with a 50/50 ratio for both U/Pb series? If you can't, then all of the evidence is consistent with a same state past, not a former state past.

After all you do not know how the processes worked or what the forces were even!

Actually, using the evidence we do know how they worked. Since the U/Pb ratios fall on the concordia line we know that they worked the same as they do now.

Pretty hard to claim they would not fit some invented line of yours.

Why would the former state produce evidence that is indistinguishable from a same state past? If the past were different, then why wouldn't it produce different evidence?

Why? Ratios changed in the former nature also.

They did? By how much? What was the decay rate? Where is the evidence for this claim?

When you graph that, you would just attribute all changes to the present state. Stop with the religion already. Yech.

Nothing about the measurement of the isotopes uses the present state decay rates. Stop with the misrepresentation already.

Only in your head are they consistent.

If that is your claim, then please tell me how the ratios would need to be different in order to be consistent with a same state past.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say that things changed sometime after the flood, and we started to live shorter lives. But not to worry, we now live forever because we believe in Jesus. Even the people in the coming thousand year reign of Christ on earth will have real long lifespans again though.

Evidence?

 

[dad]

A hypothesis is not a belief system

Yours is though since it sits on belief.

Answer the question. Why would the ratios produced by "Creation" be exactly the ratios we would expect from 4.5 billion years of a same state past?

Same Person changed the state as created the universe. Why expect some weirdness?

If the evidence matches the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is supported. You don't care that I have just evidenced a same state past?

Anyone can claim the evidence matches their beliefs. The evidence itself does not prove your claimed past nature in any way.

Why would the hourglass start with ratios that are consistent with 4.5 billion years of decay in a same state past?

Because the stuff in the glass was created stuff. It just did something new in the new nature. Simple.

The Concordia line represents ratios that are consistent with a same state past.

Your idea of consistent rests entirely in la la land in the imaginary same state past fantasy construct. If they change things a few million or even a billion years, who cares in your mind? It still is all harmonious! Look, you assign decay dates to stuff, and make a graph. Whooopee do.

They are the data points that support the hypothesis of a same state past.

They are abused evidence of you know not what and clearly have one interest only...claiming that they must agree with your fanatical beliefs.

If the creation produced rocks with a 50/50 ratio of both U/Pb series then it would not fall on the concordia line. Can you tell us why the creation could not produce zircons with a 50/50 ratio for both U/Pb series?

Name the point in (imaginary) time you think that both of those things happened? (isotopes started to exist)

They did? By how much? What was the decay rate?

Decay rate?? You claim there was decay in the far past? Where is the evidence for this claim?

Nothing about the measurement of the isotopes uses the present state decay rates. Stop with the misrepresentation already.

Once we determine the ratio, you claim that the ratio exists because of present state decay. What else matters? Who cares how the ratios are measured??! The issue is what you do with them once we measured them.

If that is your claim, then please tell me how the ratios would need to be different in order to be consistent with a same state past.

Why would I try to weld reality to fit your godless unproven nature of the past? That is insanity.

 

[dad]

Evidence?

The evidence that things became different is Scripture. Aside from that you must admit ignorance of those times. Such is the price of rejection.

 

[dad]

How long are we talking about dad? 6000 years? 4000 years since the flood?

Who knows? I usually go with about 4500 years to the flood. We could toss a hundred years around a bit if needed.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Who knows? I usually go with about 4500 years to the flood. We could toss a hundred years around a bit if needed.

 

[dad]

Where did you pull that number from? the pyramids are at least 4000 years old and there were people putting up stone circles in the UK before that, where did the Chinese and the black Australian Aborigines come from?

Your dates are wrong and belief based. Abraham was a contemorary of Noah. We know about when he lived.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You have no ability to test squat out of this state. Anyway...anyhow.

Well, it is getting well practiced in science denial like this that paves the way for our current inability to get some serious work done on global warming. It is not a harmless aberration.